Slitherine

one thing I am struck by is the light infantry/jagers were often sent to fight in rough/steep/towns. Maybe light infantry (and I would exclude irregular light and t roops always in skirmishers) should get +1 dice (in melee) in difficult/buildings (they would have a light endge of regular drilled troops, but superior and guards wouldl still generally have an advantage) (the evades should be wound back, I dont want them to became super troops )

I would rather see close and medium range extended for heavy artillery than an extra dice at those ranges. (1) artillery is already pretty effective at those ranges and (2) longer range effectiveness is more historical than increased lethality.

As I previously stated, 12pdrs should probably have a medium range of 7mu and 6pdrs only 5MU.
The problem is, it breaks the game.
The depth of a unit is an unrealistic 200yds - more than the difference between a 6pdr and a 12pdr.
However, the British wouldn't fire canister at more than 350yds, while the French would fire at up to 800yds - when they had the ammunition to spare.
With such a variation you have to make a stand somewhere.

The last thing we want is for heavy artillery deploying in at medium range, with the infantry unable to fire back. Medium range for infantry depends on how far forwards the skirmish screen is deployed. If the enemy artillery deploys a little further back, the skirmish screen would advance further forwards. Having everything using the same range bands negates the effect of IGO/UGO.

A difference of an inch can't be modeled in a game of this scale. There is no finite distance at which artillery would change from round shot to canister - it would depend on the local artillery commander and the local terrain.....Something we are just not going to model.

terrys wrote:

I would rather see close and medium range extended for heavy artillery than an extra dice at those ranges. (1) artillery is already pretty effective at those ranges and (2) longer range effectiveness is more historical than increased lethality.

As I previously stated, 12pdrs should probably have a medium range of 7mu and 6pdrs only 5MU.
The problem is, it breaks the game.
The depth of a unit is an unrealistic 200yds - more than the difference between a 6pdr and a 12pdr.
However, the British wouldn't fire canister at more than 350yds, while the French would fire at up to 800yds - when they had the ammunition to spare.
With such a variation you have to make a stand somewhere.

The last thing we want is for heavy artillery deploying in at medium range, with the infantry unable to fire back. Medium range for infantry depends on how far forwards the skirmish screen is deployed. If the enemy artillery deploys a little further back, the skirmish screen would advance further forwards. Having everything using the same range bands negates the effect of IGO/UGO.

A difference of an inch can't be modeled in a game of this scale. There is no finite distance at which artillery would change from round shot to canister - it would depend on the local artillery commander and the local terrain.....Something we are just not going to model.

Understood. The key word in my post is "rather" in comparison to more dice but maybe let's test it - more dice that is.

I don't have a view on whether any changes to Heavy Artillery are warranted.

But for what its worth, I have never chosen to field heavy artillery unless compulsory, judging the extra points not worth it. For 8 points you only get 1 extra dice at long range. Much better to upgrade a medium battery to horse artillery, or spend points on an attachment, or a unit upgrade (line infantry to light infantry being the best choice).

My reasoning is that artillery at long range is generally only of nuisance value, creating CMT's to advance. Any cohesion losses caused are often in the first 2 turns against fresh formations and easily rallied.

Others sometimes use heavy artillery, so I may be in a minority on this.

I'm with you Brett, I only take heavies if mandatory, usually in my Russian armies. With the new initiative and a defender maybe getting a field fortification might make heavies a bit more attractive as you get to split 4 dice between up to 3 targets, or I believe it's 2 dice per target at long range.
Biggest problem I find is with double moves the enemy is not at long range for long so the extra cost for 4 dice at long range is rarely used. My personal experiences anyway others might see it differently in their games.
Most rules give heavies more dice, but aside from shooting at buildings, or field fortifications there does not seem like much incentive to use heavies.

deadtorius wrote:Most rules give heavies more dice...

This caught my eye because that's not true for the various rule sets I have...

Effect of heavy versus lighter artillery

1) War Games Research Group, 1685-1845: Heavies have better range only

2) Corps d'Armee: Heavies have better range only

3) Empire: Combat factors are a combination of weight and quality but heavier has a higher factor for the same range

4) Eagles over the Empire: Heavies have better range only

5) Lasalle: Heavies have better range only

6) Fast Play Grande Armee: Heavies have better range and better "to hit" number but dice are the same

7) Principles of War: Uses a strength factor that includes strength, morale, etc. X multiplier for given ranges. Heavies have better range and generally, but not always, a slightly higher strength factor

8 ) Napoleon's Battles: Heavies have better range only

In terms of ballistics the heavier shot will give you a longer range but the effect of a cannon ball once it strikes a column or line of troops in the open is much the same. Canister is a little different since you can pack more balls / pieces of lead into a 12lb vs a 6 lb gun.

Just to chip in on artillery ...

Under the current points cost, I am a regular user of both horse and heavy batteries as I find the extra 8pts a bargain in both cases.

For horse artillery you get to be largely immune to interference through the ability to evade and as a bonus you get huge flexibility in being able to zip to exactly where you're needed with 10MUs; 20 with a double move. Oh, and a shoot and evade option that other artillery doesn't get. Not bad for a mere 8pts extra. Heck, it's nearly as cost effective as having rifles

Heavies are the same. An extra dice AND hitting buildings on 5's at long range. Very nice. Show me a better way to open up a defensive corner for just 8pts. Alternately, by contrast, for the same 8pts, I could get a skirmisher attachment which does neither.

Then, of course, there's a "multiplier" effect to be had from taking a large heavy battery with an attached heavy gun. 6 dice at long range is impressive against small units; 9 dice at medium and 10 at close make it very hard to close with. Used at the flank end of an attack it WILL open up a position (and the threat of it alone is disturbing enough). The only genuine counter is to throw a cavalry unit or two at it - work through the probabilities and you'll see what I mean ...

We pitched the long range of artillery about half-way between effective and maximum ranges for round shot.
For canister we use the effective range of mediums as our guide

In a direct conversion, medium guns should probably only have a long range of 14mu, and heavies should have a medium range of 7mu.
To reflect the weight of shot at long range we should perhaps only give heavies the POA against deep targets - although we may have to redefine what a 'deep' target is. To reflect volume of fire we should give mediums another dice at long range. (medium guns are usually considered to fire faster than heavies by a factor of 3:2)
We should then give heavies an extra inch on their medium range

However, I don't believe doing this would add anything to the game except make it more complicated and slow it down. The only 'real' effect at long range would be that heavy artillery would be able to fire at mediums without reply (big deal!). The loss of 2MU for mediums against infantry and cavalry targets being largely irrelevant.

We don't do anything about the fact that the British generally started fired canister at a range 1" closer than other nations and that the French usually fired their at 1" further. At longer ranges the difference in casualties caused by round shot and canister becomes quite blurred.
We want the game to highlight the coordinated use of all 3 arms of service, not get bogged down with differences in technology, almost all of which is largely irrelevant.

I agree: Please don't complicate the game.

Don't forget that while the British may have fired canister a little closer than some, they also had shrapnel, a round no other nation possessed. They'd use it at the ranges the French were forced to use canister. It also proved effective in counter battery, not in material damage, but the inability for the target gunners to reply in kind had a morale effect leading them to move their batteries - which was the goal in any event.

No shrapnel in these rules...

Alastair

terrys wrote:We pitched the long range of artillery about half-way between effective and maximum ranges for round shot.
For canister we use the effective range of mediums as our guide

In a direct conversion, medium guns should probably only have a long range of 14mu, and heavies should have a medium range of 7mu.
To reflect the weight of shot at long range we should perhaps only give heavies the POA against deep targets - although we may have to redefine what a 'deep' target is. To reflect volume of fire we should give mediums another dice at long range. (medium guns are usually considered to fire faster than heavies by a factor of 3:2)
We should then give heavies an extra inch on their medium range

However, I don't believe doing this would add anything to the game except make it more complicated and slow it down. The only 'real' effect at long range would be that heavy artillery would be able to fire at mediums without reply (big deal!). The loss of 2MU for mediums against infantry and cavalry targets being largely irrelevant.

We don't do anything about the fact that the British generally started fired canister at a range 1" closer than other nations and that the French usually fired their at 1" further. At longer ranges the difference in casualties caused by round shot and canister becomes quite blurred.
We want the game to highlight the coordinated use of all 3 arms of service, not get bogged down with differences in technology, almost all of which is largely irrelevant.

Terry, I'm happy with the current effectiveness of artillery but I'm not a tournament player. I realize we are stuck with the current points, more or less, so I'm willing to see how some ideas for increased effectiveness work out. My only concern is that we don't go the way of FoGAM v2 which is we can't change points so we change mechanisms so someone's fly-by-night army / favourite troop type can be 'competitive'. Too much of that and....well...not good.

For historical play, they are heavy guns are effective because of (1) a bombardment phase and (2) battles tended to focus around control of strong points based on villages and farms.

Finally, to answer Dan's rhetorical question above (LOL), "would a corps commander give up his heavy battery for a medium one?" In general, perhaps not, but I can imagine cases when he'd leave the heavy battery behind. Would he give up his mediums for all heavies? Likely never. Certainly not the French as they handled there medium batteries very aggressively.

Can we discuss the beta changes/suggestions here?

Or is a beta forum coming?

Or would you prefer we just individually email comments to you?

When I started using my full Russian army and played 1812 I got 2 field fortifications. The French were not thrilled with them so their answer was a heavy battery, specifically to take out one FF, which proved effective. Its like shooting at a building with artillery, heavies have a better chance of getting hits. Its possible more players will start to choose heavy guns as the defenders have a chance to getting a field fortification which can be a real pain for the attacker.

Blathergut wrote:I agree: Please don't complicate the game.

Yes I quite agree. The 2/6/18 MU range bands work well.

Hy,

I haven't been able to read it all and will try do do it tomorrow ( or so I hope ).

Anyway for me the most important is : keep it simple .

One of the issues is artlillery . Range is OK in a 800 point game but in our big games ( 3.000-5.000 points ) and what might happen in a Waterloo game it seems a problem .

The tendency seem to be for some people to creat a "grande batterie" and move a long line of guns forward 2 MU, slowly or not ( superior veteran guard artillery is very good at it ) and come within medium range and even short range fearlessly . As Waterloo is a fairly good subject for now, I am pretty sure I will see some french launchig his artillery forward to just blow the ennemy away . It seems very unhistorical but very efficient . And it happens . I know , especially the french used their artilley agressivly but used 6 pdr horse or foot art, to run forward, unlimber and fire . But mainly they tried to stay out of infantry range . There are exceptions, but I do not know of a whole line of artillery moving forward by "prolonge" for " many MU" .

I have for now no solution as prolonge should be allowed .Perhaps , to keep it simple, prohibiting artillery units that fired to move by prolonge during movement turn would help .

Also artillery range while OK for 800 points game seems a bit short in big games or historical battles. At waterloo, french art fire did reach behind the ridge and di cause some casualties ( authors do not agree on the real effect so we might debate endlessly ) . We might have a new range for ART an extreem long range to 24 MU with one die less than long range . The effect might be limited but still an effect . The unfamous cumberland hussars did suffer +/- 61 dead at Waterloo due to french artillery fire . They never were close to the french and certainly more than 1 KM ( 16 MU ) . The historical result , in game terms would be "disrupted" . Latter seeing friendly troops routing , after La Haye Sainte fell, they went wavering before routing

So any comments

Any ideas

bahdahbum wrote: The tendency seem to be for some people to creat a "grande batterie" and move a long line of guns forward 2 MU, slowly or not ( superior veteran guard artillery is very good at it ) and come within medium range and even short range fearlessly . As Waterloo is a fairly good subject for now, I am pretty sure I will see some french launchig his artillery forward to just blow the ennemy away . It seems very unhistorical but very efficient .

I have for now no solution as prolonge should be allowed .Perhaps , to keep it simple, prohibiting artillery units that fired to move by prolonge during movement turn would help .

Also artillery range while OK for 800 points game seems a bit short in big games or historical battles. At waterloo, french art fire did reach behind the ridge and di cause some casualties ( authors do not agree on the real effect so we might debate endlessly ) . We might have a new range for ART an extreem long range to 24 MU with one die less than long range .

You make a variety of good points.
A possible exception to the advancing artillery line is the French at Friedland. But I would need to re-read the specific action to take a real position.
Now guns that pro-long to within 6 MU of reformed infantry, do risk (and I find often) take hits. So there is a downside. But if guns can't get to within 6 MU they are weakened. It is clear that gun crews exposed to infantry fire suffered. The French skirmishers on the ridge at Waterloo effectively contributed to preventing the recrewing of the batteries.
Now if guns have to offensively stay beyond 6 MU you will see more Heavy. As those 4 dice will matter. You may also see less artillery in some armies that are aggressive oriented.
(I'm not sure that's entirely bad. The combo of a cavalry crops and horse artillery racing up and then deploying at 6 MU. The infantry goes to square and the guns prolong in, works like a charm. In fact it is very hard to counter if it is already under way.)
The other option is to say Heavy cannot prolong to change range bands unless their only target is a building.
Or make all artillery take an ADDITIONAL CMT to pro-long if part of the move is to a closer range band. Worded this way, artillery under attack or wheeling for a more precise close in shot is still only a single CMT.
I do like the general idea of giving Heavy guns only an extended range out to 24 MU. Why not. Even if you let them keep their dice. Historical terrain is often cluttered and this further incentivizes LOS block terrain.

There are many ways to do it but what changes do we want to do. Artillery could have a medium range of 7 mu, but is 400 meters a good range ? Anotherceasy one is to reduce firing range of reformed infantry to 4 or 5 mu . The question being how far did skirmisher go in front of their main unit as usual firing range is just under 2 mu and do we want to reduce firing range and perhaps slow the game .

I sense we may risk getting into a right pickle re artillery - with Corps level games vying with bigger games. for how best to treat it. FOG(N) tends to treat artillery with a Corps/Div level of functionality and so impact which works when to put it crudely the average number of " barrels" per Corps in a standard game is less than 50 including attachments . The latter are when the real " prolong" ( which is a noun to begin with and a piece of kit) comes in In many ways.A FoG(N) unit of two bases of 12-19 guns in a division is too many to advance by prolong - they might leapfrog within that number within the 12-19.

It's never been quite satisfactory for me as as a set of ratios give you have batteries of 6 ,8 and 12 in various nations. maybe we could have had different approach one base = 6 guns ie the smallest in individual batteries. But not really sure that helps either -need a bit more thought and re-reading. The numbes of guns grows and grows across the period - that is the dilemma.

But we must distinguish between ( to my mind) a casualty and ballistic based approach which is not very satisfactory (at a Corps level) and maybe even bogus for an outcome based approach - as now. Don't favour stretching ranges to 24". Not on a 6x4 . Sure on my 12x6 !

MDH wrote:I sense we may risk getting into a right pickle re artillery - with Corps level games vying with bigger games. for how best to treat it. FOG(N) tends to treat artillery with a Corps/Div level of functionality and so impact which works when to put it crudely the average number of " barrels" per Corps in a standard game is less than 50 including attachments . The latter are when the real " prolong" ( which is a noun to begin with and a piece of kit) comes in In many ways.A FoG(N) unit of two bases of 12-19 guns in a division is too many to advance by prolong - they might leapfrog within that number within the 12-19.

It's never been quite satisfactory for me as as a set of ratios give you have batteries of 6 ,8 and 12 in various nations. maybe we could have had different approach one base = 6 guns ie the smallest in individual batteries. But not really sure that helps either -need a bit more thought and re-reading. The numbes of guns grows and grows across the period - that is the dilemma.

But we must distinguish between ( to my mind) a casualty and ballistic based approach which is not very satisfactory (at a Corps level) and maybe even bogus for an outcome based approach - as now. Don't favour stretching ranges to 24". Not on a 6x4 . Sure on my 12x6 !

I agree with you, Mike, that we do risk getting into a pickle with regards to artillery in a corps level game. It's not that one can't play larger battles with FoGN. Surely one can but there will be things missing - such as bombardment, pauses between corps level engagements, re-grouping, etc. The small & large artillery units in FoGN are neither fish nor fowl. They aren't the close supported batteries and gun sections sent forward with the infantry and cavalry and nor are they positional batteries and grand batteries that provided long range support and which tended to act under the direction of the corps or army artillery officers and not divisional commanders. Logistics is one of the key missing pieces. Close support guns aren't expected to fire for prolonged (and not "prolong") periods of time unlike positional batteries. Re-positioning positional (LOL) batteries and grand batteries takes planning which is why we don't see grand batteries being moved forward by prolong into medium and close range. The grand battery at Friedland was not a positional, bombardment battery but a close range, cannister attack assembled by the artillery officer, Senarmont. It was a short lived (25 min) and decisive affair.

Within the game context of a corps level action within a larger battle heavy batteries have specific advantage which would be, as noted above, to fire on troops in buildings and fortifications. I don't think that an artillery commander would be likely to move his heavy artillery to within close range of a defender. Given the rate of fire and mobility of horse and lighter, field artillery I don't see that there should be any close range advantage for heavy artillery. Note that Senarmont's grand battery (actually two 15-gun batteries) were mostly horse and field artillery with few heavy guns, the 30 guns being 30 out of 36 guns that belonged to the I Corps.

As a further observation, the grand battery at Waterloo was mostly medium guns. It took some time to assemble. In the afternoon, after the failed I Corps attack, three batteries (I believe) were pushed forward onto the lower ridge closer to La Haye Sainte but that some took time.

A lot of verbiage on my part, but by and large I like the artillery in rules as is - keep the ranges as they are now for simplicity. I would prefer keeping the dice as they are now as I wouldn't like to see people pushing their heavy batteries into close range, but I am willing to test that if you and Terry want to try that option.

An idea would be that all batteries allocated to divisional commands are attachments and that a new type of commander, a corps artillery commander, be introduced which is allowed to command only artillery units. Perhaps not all army lists would be allowed an artillery commander, in which case the "positional" artillery units could only be moved by the expenditure of CP by the Corps commander. That would be more realistic but it probably isn't worth the extra complexity.

I don't know about perceptions about whether or not heavy artillery are worth their points value. Perhaps not in certain types of games but perhaps they are in others. Value points are, after all, only a guess at an ephemeral universal utility function that assesses troop value overall all possible scenarios.

" Positional artillery " is just a role or function and could be performed by any number of guns from a single battery upwards and such guns would (for the most part ) only be moved on the orders of a senior general officer . Whereas support artillery battery commanders had much more freedom - under the overall command of a local senior field officer . By modelling this distinction we tried to avoid batteries charging around the battle field at will. The maintenance of the rate of fire , the replacement of damaged guns and crews etc was much less feasible for the support guns if that army was a going forward. ( Gettysburg third day illustrates it well as the problem remained the same. )

Page 87-88 set all this out in summary form.

The formation of grand batteries from the constituent parts of Corps' orders of battle needed higher level orders to bring it about Corps Commanders being loath at times to give up their cannon.

It might be worth designing an optional, richer " multi Corps big battle" framework for the grand batteries of the later period. Firing before movement helps of course. you do need width on the table. Soldiers did not like friendly shells going over their heads from behind them and fuzes were not totally reliable and round shot would actually be dangerous as it had a flatter trajectory and would ricochet. So bombardments were either before the troops advanced or from a side or angled position to avoid those risks and fears.